Why Atheists Aren’t (Necessarily) Exempt from the Burden of Proof

It’s not uncommon to hear atheists claim they don’t have the burden of proof—only theists do. But is that really right?

It’s not uncommon to hear atheists claim they don’t have the burden of proof—only theists do. But is that really right?

To get to the bottom of this pesky matter, let’s first do what philosophers love to do to show they’re being especially careful and helpful—give names to things. (Sometimes, philosophers rename things that already have names, just to seem original. Watch how it’s done.)

So, there are at least two types of atheism out there.

Call one of these Psychological Atheism. Psychological Atheism is simply reporting one’s mental state: for whatever reason, a person finds themselves in the state of believing that God does not or probably does not exist. (Note: this is different from psychological agnosticism, which is being unsure if God exists, or just lacking belief in God but also not claiming belief in the non-existence of God. Of course, the boundaries aren’t always clear. For instance, if someone feels 51% confident that God doesn’t exist, are they really an atheist or an agnostic?) Why might someone be a Psychological Atheist? There could be all sorts of reasons. Maybe, after much intellectual effort, they find an atheistic worldview (more on that in a minute) most persuasive. Or maybe they were just hit in the head by a tire iron at some point.

Call the other Worldview Atheism. Worldview Atheism goes beyond just reporting one’s psychological state—it’s about presenting a philosophical Big Picture. Worldview Atheism is a systematically articulated web of beliefs meant to account for things that seem like obvious features of reality that require accounting—stuff like contingency, morality, and life. It’s not just psychological reporting; it’s an explanatory project, by golly. It’s meant to tell us not just the state of mind someone is in, but how the world really is, and maybe even why (though the answer might be, "There is no why"). And, of course, whatever else Worldview Atheism includes, it definitely excludes God—it must necessarily exclude God.

So, back to the original point: sometimes you’ll hear atheists say they don’t need to explain anything or argue for their position—the burden of proof is on the theist. Whether this is correct depends on what kind of atheist they claim to be. If they’re just a Psychological Atheist, then sure, we can accept that they don’t believe in God; there’s no need for them to argue that position. However, if they’re a Worldview Atheist, making a claim about how reality actually is, then obviously, they have a burden of proof. The same goes for the theist, if they’re proposing a worldview. Anyone proposing a theory about reality—especially if they want others to believe it—has a burden of proof. That seems like common sense to me. (But also this: arguments for why atheism should be the default are, in my opinion, terrible. I survey and reject several in my book, but here’s an especially bad one: theists have the burden of proof because they’re making a positive claim. Well, if we’re considering Worldview Atheism, the atheist is making all sorts of positive claims about reality—often just as many as the the Worldview Theist—and one of those claims is that God does not exist!)

I don’t think these points are in serious dispute—or at least, they shouldn’t be. Generally, I don’t think people have to argue for direct observations—including, and especially, their own mental states—but they do have to argue for theories which are brought forth to explain such observations. It would be strange to claim that if you’re bringing a theory to the intellectual table to explain something, you don’t have a burden of proof. No! It seems absolutely right to say that anyone presenting a theory has an obligation to defend that theory. So, if we’re talking about atheism or theism as worldviews—that is, as Big Picture theories of everything—then both sides have an obligation to defend their proposals; both have a burden of proof.

Nevertheless, if something wants to persist in saying that “atheism isn’t a theory," I’ll say, OK. Maybe your atheism isn’t a theory, because it’s just psychological reporting. But there are many other people—very smart, sophisticated, monocle-wearing types—whose atheism is a theory. And, not to be rude, but I’m not super interested in just hearing about people’s psychological happenings—I want to know what’s true. I want to know what the different theories are and what they do or do not have going for them.

Final point: this terminology is a bit unfortunate, since "burden of proof" is originally courtroom language, and it doesn’t make sense in that context for both parties to have a burden of proof. But science and philosophy aren’t really courtrooms, are they? It’s just obvious that when people come forward with competing theories, both sides bear the responsibility of defending their view.

And that’s all I think we have to say about that—frankly, that’s all we should say about that, so we can finally get around to adjudicating something a lot more interesting, in my view: which theory actually is true?